argu 32 球拍

张卓琪

in this argument the arguer comes to the conclusions that by shortening each of the three work shifts by one hour of company QM, the number of on-the-job accidents will be reduced and productivity will be increased. To justify the conclusion, the author cites company P as comparision which has lower accidents because workers of the company work one hour shorter. The author also points out that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant factors in many on-the-job accidents. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.
First and foremost, the argument unfairly claims that on-the-job accidents is the result of the fatigue and sleep deprivation rather than some other phenomenon. The arguer ignores a host of other possible reasons for the accidents. Perhaps manufacturing management, or perhaps safty awareness and the skill level of the workers. without ruling out all other possible explanations for the on-the-job accidents,the author can not convince me that injuries suffered in the job results from fatigue and sleep deprivation.
In addition, even though the assumption that fatigue and sleep deprivation lead to the industrial injuries was established, and in the author’s opinion, fatigue and sleep deprivation can be relieved through shortening working time, the article fails to account for that extra time can be used to have a rest, let alone the conclusion draw from the assumption.
Besides, even assuming that injuries suffered in the job are attributed to the fatigue and sleep deprivation, the author commits a false analogy in assuming that by the same means company QM will achieve the same result as the company P does. The arguer fails to consider possible defferences between company QM and P, which might help to bring about a different result for company QM. In fact, it is possible that company QM has larger scale of production and more workers. for example, company QM has 200 workers and 13 on-the-job accidents, meanwhile, company P has 100 workers and 10 industrial injures. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, any analogy between the two company is premature and the arguer can not assume that shortening working time would bring the same result in company QM as company P did.
In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading, to make it logically accepted , the author should have to substantiate what have been presented above. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the argument until the author can provide more information about whether extra time can be well used and the two campanies have same wokers and so on.

普渡哥

最后一段第一句后应该用句号